John
Kerry's stumble delayed Obama's war. It's not averted. He
intends to wage it. He'll do it later, not now.

In London, Kerry said Assad "could turn over every single bit
of his chemical weapons to the international community in the next week.
Turn it over, all of it, without delay, and allow a full and total accounting
for that."

"But he isn't about to do it, and it can't be done, obviously,"
he added.

A previous article said Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov called
Kerry's bluff. He's going all out to prevent war. So are Syrian officials.

From Moscow, Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem welcomed Russia's proposal.
It calls for placing Syria's chemical weapons under international control,
agreeing to their destruction, and signing the Chemical Weapons Convention
(CWC).

CWC prohibits the development, production, stockpiling and use of
chemical weapons. It mandates their destruction. It doesn't deter Washington
from violating its provisions.

CWC mandates non-complying nations be referred to the Security Council
for action against them. America's veto power precludes efforts to do
so.

Washington uses banned weapons in all its wars. They include chemical,
biological and radiological ones. No evidence links Syria to chemical
or other prohibited weapons use any time throughout months of conflict.
Claims otherwise are fabricated.

Moallem pledged "full cooperation" with Moscow. He did so
to deter Washington's planned aggression.

Syria isn't party to CWC or the Organization for the Prohibition of
Chemical Weapons (OPCW). It's a 1925 Geneva Protocol signatory. It prohibits
chemical and biological weapons use.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is preparing a resolution for Security
Council consideration.

"I'm considering urging the Security Council to demand the immediate
transfer of Syria's chemical weapons and chemical precursor stocks to
places inside Syria where they can be safely stored and destroyed,"
he said.

"I am sure that the international community will take quick measures
to make sure that these chemical weapons reserves are stored in a safe
place and are to be destroyed."

Paul Walker's a chemical weapons expert. He's Green Cross International
program director. He welcomes Syria agreeing to place its chemical weapons
under international control, saying:

"I think it still would be a very positive step forward and might
be the one open door left to President Assad to hold off a very serious
military strike - which obviously would threaten the Assad regime, and
certainly his chemical, military forces and command and control."

He called moving and destroying chemical weapons very hazardous work.

"Part of it would depend to what extent their chemical agents
are alive. In other words, are they already prepared? Are they loaded
into weapons? If they are it could be quite dangerous."

If toxic chemicals aren't weaponized and haven't been pre-mixed into
a live agent, they can be moved or otherwise handled more safely, he
added.

If Assad signs CWC, he's obligated to declare what's in his stockpile.
OPCW experts would inventory it. Destruction would follow.

According to Walker, doing so's a lengthy process. It's costly and
complicated. Depending on Syria's quantity and types, it may take years
to complete.

"What we need to do is make sure the president has the opportunity
to speak to all 100 senators and all 300 million American people before
we do this."

Senator Diane Feinstein (D. CA) was the first senior Democrat to support
Lavrov's proposal, saying:

"I think if the UN would accept the responsibility of maintaining
these facilities, seeing that they're secure, and that Syria would announce
that it is giving up any chemical weapons programs or delivery system
vehicles that may have been armed, then I think we've got something."

Other Senate and House members feel the same way. Foreign leaders
expressed support.

They include Britain's David Cameron, Germany's Angela Merkel, and
French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius among others.

An unnamed senior State Department official said Kerry warned Lavrov.
Washington's "not going to play games," he said.

Other current Obama officials scrambled on Monday. They urged no delay
in attacking Syria. Former Obama officials said the same thing.

They turned truth on its head. They called Lavrov's proposal a delaying
tactic. Russia's allied with Syria, they said. It's against Obama's
agenda. They want it pursued, not delayed or deterred.

Deputy National Security Advisor Tony Blinken said:

"Its very important to note that its clear that this proposal
comes in the context of the threat of US action and the pressure that
the president is exerting."

"So it's even more important that we don't take the pressure
off and that Congress give the president the authority he’s requested."

Deputy National Security Advisor for strategic communication Benjamin
Rhodes, National Security Advisor Susan Rice, White House press secretary
Jay Carney, and State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf made the same
argument.

Former Obama Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met with Obama. She
emerged saying Lavrov's proposal "would be an important step, but
this cannot be another excuse for delay or obstruction."

Doing so shows Obama's war plans aren't averted. It bears repeating.
The road to Tehran runs through Damascus.

Attacking Syria is delayed. Obama said "(i)t's possible if (what's
proposed) is real."

"And, you know, I think it's certainly a positive development
when, the Russians and the Syrians both make gestures toward dealing
with these chemical weapons."

"This is what we've been asking for not just over the last week
or the last month, but for the last couple of years."

"If we can exhaust these diplomatic efforts and come up with
a formula that gives the international community a verifiable, enforceable
mechanism to deal with these chemical weapons in Syria, then I'm all
for it."

"But we're going to have to see specifics. And I think it is
reasonable to assume that we would not be at this point if there were
not a credible military threat standing behind the norm against the
use of chemical weapons."

"We were not in the area where the (August 21 Ghouta) chemical
attack" occurred. "Our soldiers in another area were attacked
chemically."

"They went to the hospital as casualties (from) chemical weapons.
But in the area where they said the government used chemical weapons,
we only (have) video, and we only have pictures and allegations. We're
not there."

"How can you talk about what happened if you don't have evidence.
We're not like the American administration."

"We're not social media administration or government. We are
the government that deals with reality."

Kerry's "high confidence" isn't evidence, he stressed. He
compared what he said to Colin Powell's infamous February 2003 moment.

Russia's evidence is polar opposite of what Kerry claims. "In
this case, Kerry didn't even present any evidence," he added.

"He talks (and says) 'we have evidence,' and he didn't present
anything, not yet. Nothing so far. Not a single shred of evidence."
He can't because he has none.

Vladimir Putin called Kerry a liar. Assad implied the same accusation.
All wars are based on lies. Obama's planned aggression is no exception.